| Summary: | CLANG/LLVM code generation bug with optimisation on i386 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base System | Reporter: | David Hines <freebsd> | ||||
| Component: | i386 | Assignee: | freebsd-i386 (Nobody) <i386> | ||||
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||||||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||||||
| Priority: | Normal | ||||||
| Version: | 10.0-RELEASE | ||||||
| Hardware: | Any | ||||||
| OS: | Any | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
David Hines
2014-02-17 17:50:00 UTC
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, David Hines wrote: >> Description: > "cc -O -o clang_bug-O clang_bug.c" generates incorrect code on i386, with the attached sample code. Without the "-O", or on an amd64 install the problem does not occur. This is a bug in clang_bug.c. It's behaviour is undefined. > Xunion > X{ > X int i; > X} u; > X > X > Xint > Xmain(int argc, char *argv[]) > X{ > X int j = 1; > X > X for (u.i = 1; u.i += u.i; ++j) > X ; > X printf("An int has %d bits\n", j); > X > X return 0; > X} Undefined behaviour occurs when the addition overflows. clang somehow notices this (u.i starts as 1, and repeated doublings of it cannot make it 0 unless overflow occurs). The addition does in fact overflow. The result can be anything. Some people (not me) don't like clang not giving the "normal" behaviour on overflow. Bruce State Changed From-To: open->closed The program relies on integer overflow, which is undefined behavior. Either fix the program (recommended), or compile with -fwrapv. |